| Revision as of 11:54, 25 June 2024 edit2407:7000:9bf1:4000:f086:443d:3f49:9bcc (talk) →COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:15, 25 June 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,295,380 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Nicholas Wade/Archive 5) (bot | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| :::::::Yes see also ]. We would want well-regarded secondary review articles that are peer-reviewed by experts and published in topic-relevant expert-edited scientific journals. And we definitely do not have that for the view espoused by the IP. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 14:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC) | :::::::Yes see also ]. We would want well-regarded secondary review articles that are peer-reviewed by experts and published in topic-relevant expert-edited scientific journals. And we definitely do not have that for the view espoused by the IP. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 14:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::So are we still sticking with this language? Really? ] (]) 04:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC) | ::::::::So are we still sticking with this language? Really? ] (]) 04:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC) | ||
| == Criticism-heavy lead == | |||
| @]: I fail to see how the current lead is a fair reflection of the subject and their career as a science writer. I added the as a first step in addressing this imbalance. Nicholas Wade is 81 years old. His first lead 'controversy' is from 2014, by which point he was already 72, so the lead basically breezes over his first 50 years as a science writer - not naming a single one of his notable works, not least '']'' (the one I added), which has its own GA page - to focus on a single notable book and a single less-notable article that caused some controversy. As it stands, the lead doesn't just include significant controversies, per ], but is mostly that. ] (]) 05:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I respectfully disagree with your (implicit) reading of ] here. added more characters about a minor award for which no ] sources have been provided than about either of the major controversies for which Wade is primarily known. It's fine to include a mention of this award in the article body, but it's a profound misreading of P&G to claim that we're required to scrape the bottom of the barrel like that to ensure that we say nice things about him. As I'm sure you know, Misplaced Pages articles are meant to summarize reliable secondary sources in ] proportion. Which means that if the vast majority of the secondary coverage this person has received is critical or discusses criticism of his work, the article as a whole has to reflect that, as does the lead. Regardless of what he got up to in his early career (which we do summarize in the lead's first paragraph), what Wade is most notable for is pushing unsubstantiated / ] ideas, most egregiously in his book ''A Troublesome Inheritance''. It's a shame for him but it is what it is. ] (]) 05:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not scraping any barrel. It's a notable award, with its own page, but ok, fair enough, scratch that ... how about a mention at least of the notable work, with its own GA page, that won the award (without mentioning the award)? I stand by my view that it's frankly ridiculous to have three lines in the lead on his first 50 years of activity. It also flies in the face of balance with respect to the balance of contents on the page itself, which is about 40% his early life and career, 40% troublesome inheritance, and 20% the Covid stuff. The lead, after the opening sentence, gives about 25 words to his first 70 years of life, 25 words to troublesome inheritance, and 40 words to Covid - the latter overemphasis being one that frankly smacks of ]. Wade may be flawed, but this is indeed not neutral. ] (]) 05:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I appreciate your willingness to compromise. My understanding, however, is that NPOV requires us to apportion our coverage in proportion to how much coverage is given in reliable ] sources. I was just now going over the article '']'', which did indeed receive GA status 10 years ago but has a lot of problems still, including very few such reliable secondary sources. Many of the "reviews" quoted there are either just blurbs or are written by journalists (or ]). Actual biological anthropologists, publishing an actual review in ''Nature'', . So I'm really not convinced that the book is super significant. Can you show me any secondary coverage of the award which would indicate that it's considered noteworthy by anyone other than the issuing organization? Regarding the COVID stuff, I'm not especially attached to it either, but I do think it's notable enough to remain in the lead, and if we mention it we need to mention that it's a minority view among scientists. My main concern, however, is that we don't bury the main thing for which Wade is actually known, the fact that an ''unprecedented'' 143 senior subject-matter experts signed a letter condemning his misrepresentation of their work. That is the one thing that is ''genuinely unique'' about this individual. We must not do our readers the disservice of burying that fact beneath a facade of niceties. ] (]) 06:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Update: I saw that a consensus was achieved a while back to switch to a slightly shorter version of the COVID language (see ]). Not sure when / why it was reverted but I restored that version. So at least that's marginally shorter now. ] (]) 07:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Disputed edits == | == Disputed edits == | ||
Latest revision as of 17:15, 25 June 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nicholas Wade article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
COVID-19 Conspiracy theory
RE: "While some experts have supported taking the lab leak possibility seriously, the majority consider it very unlikely, calling it "speculative and unsupported".
Consider dropping this quote since Wade writes that a lab leak by an accident could have happened, and an accident cannot be a conspiracy. Plus, given the US Intelligence Community report and the work of Matt Ridley and Alania Chan suggests there is a lot of room for debate based on science, timeliness and evidence collected. 173.72.254.24 (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- That statement is correct as written. The claimed conspiracy would not have been the leak, but rather the alleged cover-up afterwards. NightHeron (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Given the congressional hearings, email leaks, and wide spread reporting about Fauci's premature publication of journal articles in the Lancet and Nature that concluded that the lab leak hypothesis was extremely unlikely when many on his own team believed it should be taken seriously, to describe the lab leak or the cover-up as a conspiracy theory seems misleading. 97.120.181.231 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Politicians' shenanigans are not relevant for evaluation of scientific theories. See Indiana Pi Bill. --Hob Gadling (talk)
- Given the congressional hearings, email leaks, and wide spread reporting about Fauci's premature publication of journal articles in the Lancet and Nature that concluded that the lab leak hypothesis was extremely unlikely when many on his own team believed it should be taken seriously, to describe the lab leak or the cover-up as a conspiracy theory seems misleading. 97.120.181.231 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- That statement is not correct as written, although perhaps it can be repaired. It contains a quote and and WP:RS/QUOTE says "... it is important to make clear the actual source of the text ...", but the statement doesn't make that clear. The actual source is Kristian Andersen according to politico.com, talking about the leak. So the repair job could be:
... very unlikely, with Kristian Andersen calling the lab leak theory "speculative and unsupported".
Alternatives? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)- I'm not sure attribution is necessary. There are additional sources which essentially say the same thing, see WP:NOLABLEAK. Those are all mostly secondary, peer-reviewed papers in reputable journals, and they say the same thing as Andersen. Attributing might give the false impression that the theory being "speculative and unsupported" is just one scientist's opinion, when there are in fact plenty of others writing (and getting reviewed and accepted by their peers) the same thing. However, there's nothing that prevents avoiding the quote entirely and rewording, which would resolve the issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- "speculative and unsupported" is actually also the view of the scientific body writ large, per our best sources. — Shibbolethink 06:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- You think they used those words? Where? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- The most relevant bits are quoted at WP:NOLABLEAK, but you're free to go dig through the sources yourself and see the whole context behind. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Even if the WP:NOLABLEAK essay contained the words, it wouldn't trump a guideline. And it's not my job to dig up support for a dubious claim. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Update: RandomCanadian rewrote to avoid the quote, so this argument no longer matters. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- The most relevant bits are quoted at WP:NOLABLEAK, but you're free to go dig through the sources yourself and see the whole context behind. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- It is no longer the case that the lab leak theory is merely speculative. It is leading theory of the department of energy and the FBI. 97.120.181.231 (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- What those people think is not relevant for evaluation of scientific theories. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- The scientists at the department of energy are well regarded scientists. What is your basis for thinking it is not the leading theory of scientists? The former head of the CDC -- a scientist -- believes it and now scientists consider it at least as likely as any other. The Sunday Times's article quotes many scientists. 69.121.121.167 (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Wow, you used the word "scientists" five times. Now I am convinced.
- No, of course I am not. That is very naive reasoning. You need to check WP:RS to find out what Misplaced Pages accepts as reliable sources. Also, you need to learn that reliability of a sources depends on the subject. Also, you need to learn that the overwhelming majority of scientists are experts in one tiny field and completely ignorant laypeople in all the rest of science. There is no connection between energy and viruses, and there is no way of checking the reason why some secret service person has a certain opinion. Secrecy is inimical to science.
- Please take note that this is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes see also WP:RS/AC. We would want well-regarded secondary review articles that are peer-reviewed by experts and published in topic-relevant expert-edited scientific journals. And we definitely do not have that for the view espoused by the IP. — Shibbolethink 14:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- So are we still sticking with this language? Really? 72.94.251.88 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes see also WP:RS/AC. We would want well-regarded secondary review articles that are peer-reviewed by experts and published in topic-relevant expert-edited scientific journals. And we definitely do not have that for the view espoused by the IP. — Shibbolethink 14:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- The scientists at the department of energy are well regarded scientists. What is your basis for thinking it is not the leading theory of scientists? The former head of the CDC -- a scientist -- believes it and now scientists consider it at least as likely as any other. The Sunday Times's article quotes many scientists. 69.121.121.167 (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- What those people think is not relevant for evaluation of scientific theories. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- You think they used those words? Where? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Disputed edits
IP 2601:18A:C500:330:0:0:0:0/64 is invited to discuss their preferred content here rather than edit warring. Generalrelative (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis
The statements '... in which he argued that the possibility that the novel coronavirus was bioengineered and had leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China, couldn’t be dismissed.' and 'Wade's argument is at odds with the prevailing view among scientists that the virus most likely has a zoonotic origin.' are inconsistent.
The conclusion that something 'can't be dismissed' and the conclusion something counter is 'most likely' are not 'at odds' as it's entirely possible to simultaneously conclude both, so this needs rewording in some way.
Nightheron assures me that there is consensus on this particular wording, though at present I can't find it. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:F086:443D:3F49:9BCC (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Categories: